Executive summary

Background and approach

Roberts and McKee (2015) identified a number of different types
of barriers to community land-based activities. This report
focusses on ways in which such barriers can be overcome. The
findings are based on an interview survey of representatives of
private and third sector landowners. A number of types of
'resolution strategies' are described along with the factors for
success in overcoming barriers, a review of the challenges facing
landowners, and perceived principles of 'good practice' by both
landowners and communities. The report concludes with views on the
role for policy in helping to overcome barriers to community
land-based activities. The project findings are relevant to Part 4
of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 - engaging communities in
decisions relating to land, and provide recommendations for the
guidance to be issued by Scottish Ministers.

The project was based on an interview survey of twenty
individuals representing private landownership in Scotland,
including representatives of those who act as intermediaries and
facilitators during resolution processes. Interviewees therefore
included representatives of Scottish Land & Estates (
SLE) and the
National Farmers Union Scotland, representatives of the forestry
sector, representatives of conservation landowners, representatives
of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Valuation
Office Agency (
VOA), as well as
rural and urban land surveyors (
e.g. employed within
traditional land agency companies), and planning professionals.

Findings

Through reflection on their personal and professional experience
of working with landowners and communities, the interviewees
identified a number of principles for 'good practice' by
communities and landowners, as summarised in Box 1. Many of the
principles are shared by both community bodies and landowners;
nonetheless, key distinctions arise.

(iii) Fostering positive relationships through direct
communication, and building a 'track record' of community
engagement.

(iv) Involving expertise and specialist knowledge, and ensuring
that professional land management advisors adhere to good practice
principles.

(v) Reflectivity in land ownership and management (
i.e. promoting a transparent estate
development strategy, including community engagement, recognising
the public interest in decision-making, identifying surplus
land/assets and make available for community land-based activities,
etc.).

Good practice principles for communities

(i) Ensuring positive and early engagement with the relevant
landowner(s) (
e.g. presenting proposals, and
seeking up-to-date information and views).

(ii) Undertaking strategic and critical thinking (
i.e. regarding community dynamics,
capacity, governance, and needs, in addition to the role of asset
ownership and alternatives).

(iii) Establishing a 'sustainable development' plan,
demonstrating community visioning, land use assessments and
resource planning.

(iv) Achieving a unified community voice, through active
participation in local democracy and dialogue.

(vi) To work with objective and highly skilled community
advisors (including development officers and land agents), in order
to support the progress of land-based activities (
e.g. in seeking funding,
devising business plans, commissioning feasibility studies,
transacting land sales,
etc.).

(i) Case studies and resolution strategies

The interviewees described their experience and knowledge of a
number of case studies, which demonstrated how barriers to
community land-based activities may be overcome. Strategies
described include direct discussion and negotiation between
landowner and community, information provision, provision of
land/assets by the landowner to the community (including through
tailored lease arrangements, or identifying alternative sites),
agreeing contracts or conditions for land use, and partnership
approaches between landowners/management and community bodies.

Challenges and opportunities of overcoming barriers to community
land-based activities were argued to vary between rural and urban
settings. These differences derive from the scale of urban
communities and associated challenge in reaching consensus, in
addition to the greater number of communities of interest and
stakeholders necessary to include in consultation processes in
urban contexts. Furthermore, interviewees recognised a greater use
of third party agencies in urban areas, and therefore less direct
landowner- community engagement, and a potential difference in
motivation on the part of urban landowners in community engagement
processes.

(ii) Success factors

A range of success factors were identified based on past
experiences of overcoming barriers to community land-based
activities. These include an awareness of the influence of
individual personalities as either positive or negative in
overcoming barriers, and the role of 'champions' in community
engagement processes who build trust and transparency. A related
success factor is establishing 'rules of engagement',
i.e. the codes of conduct expected
within landowner-community dialogue processes. Such codes of
conduct should include the shared responsibility of all
stakeholders to explain their aspirations, motivations and
circumstances, in order to seek areas of 'common cause'. It follows
that successful partnerships are underpinned by "openness, sharing
information, communications, and willingness of community to work
with the estate [owner/management] and vice-versa."

Pre-emptive engagement was identified as helpful in that it
provides a point of departure for dialogue. Such proactive
engagement may range, for example, from landowner involvement with
children's education, to so-called 'constant consultation' with a
community on day-to-day and strategic land management planning
decisions. Success factors therefore include 'friendly'
negotiations focused on outcomes as opposed to discussions around
land value. High quality engagement ensures that all viewpoints are
incorporated (including those not active in community bodies), and
it is important that monitoring and evaluation of the engagement
process occurs. A handbook detailing 'good practice' in
landowner-community engagement is recommended in order to ensure
quality and flexibility in engagement practices.

The importance of communication practices and the role of
language are also highlighted as critical success factors, and a
'communication plan' is suggested as a core component of estate
management and community planning. Communication relies on a clear
understanding of who is the landowner and the 'community', in
addition to a common technical language for land
management/transactions.

The role of professional brokers and external support was
considered in detail by the interviewees and they were in agreement
that direct communication is preferable between landowner and
community, but that external support may be necessary in certain
circumstances to overcome barriers to community land-based
activities. In particular, the involvement of individuals and
organisations with specialist knowledge can support an 'outcomes'
approach. Therefore, the role of land agents, lawyers, community
support agencies and others, their culture, attitude, and advisory
services are key success factors. The opportunity for further
training in community engagement and greater use of mediation and
dispute resolution services for these intermediaries was
advocated.

A common theme identified as important for achieving positive
outcomes was community action planning integrated with a proactive
local development plan. This would require evidence gathering
processes, effective public consultation, and clarity of
communication, community-led visioning and associated action plans.
It was also considered important to include land use/capability
assessments and that both the community and landowner commit time
and effort to the planning process. Tools and approaches for
successful community engagement described by the interviewees,
included the interactive 'Charrette' process, the use of
participatory mapping and technology-based approaches (in
particular for gathering the views of urban communities).
Stakeholder mapping is also highlighted and the role of facilitated
'round table' discussions to consider alternative options.
Availability of funding to support such tools and approaches is
important.

Finally, interviewees explained that a critical success factor
in overcoming barriers to community land-based activities is an
approach to governance and regulation that ensures landowners
engage effectively and proactively, with associated penalties and
incentives to ensure this is the case. Some interviewees asserted
that changing the rhetoric around land reform is important. Others
suggest that ensuring the accountability of private landowners is
as important in overcoming barriers. At a more specific level,
interviewees suggested that greater consideration could be given to
identifying opportunities for assets to be sold where not central
to the requirements of a land-based business. However, others
stressed the need for 'protection' for both communities and
landowners, and were concerned that the landowners' perspective is
under-represented in such considerations.

(iii) Challenges facing private landowners

The interviewees recognised a range of challenges facing private
and third sector landowners in overcoming barriers to community
land-based activities. These include landowner perceptions that the
community lacks a cohesive vision (due to the small scale of the
community body, internal divisions, or the heterogeneity of urban
communities), and limitations within the community group, including
their capacity, skill set (
e.g. communication and business
skills) and knowledge (
e.g. of land management and
farming practices). Challenges also arise when landowner and
community engagement is conducted at too late a stage in the
development process, where there is an apparent lack of community
interest in engagement processes, or where engagement is not well
received by the community.

Disputes between landowner and community can arise due to a lack
of trust, or polarised viewpoints. Landowner 'exclusion' from a
community body was considered a challenge by interviewees in some
cases; in contrast, farmers tend to be more likely to be perceived
as community members. Conflicting motivations and objectives of the
landowner (and landowning trustees,
e.g. conservation objectives)
with the community (whose wishes may be for greater employment and
housing) can also contribute to challenges.

Further challenges detailed by the interviewees include multiple
uncertainties arising from family responsibility and expectation,
political rhetoric around land reform, lack of experience in
community engagement, negative perceptions held by the community,
and/or personality type, in addition to uncertainties that concern
business interests (
e.g. community land uses and
potential security of tenure). Perceived and actual resource costs
on the part of the private landowner can be an issue, in terms of
time, effort and skills required, plus the expense of community
engagement processes. Potential tax liabilities, the scale of
impact on land-based businesses, and the costs associated with
lease arrangements can also inhibit private landowners from seeking
to overcome barriers to community land-based activities as can the
landowner's personal capacity and skill set. In addition perceived
power imbalances, with disempowerment both on the part of the
community and that of the landowner, can inhibit the dialogue
necessary to overcome barriers.

(vi) The role for policy in supporting good
practice

The interviewees agreed that policy has a key role to play in
supporting good practice in overcoming barriers to community
land-based activities. However they also stressed the need to
evaluate existing legislative measures and underlying policy before
seeking to add further regulation or guidance.

The opportunity for policy to better support community capacity
building was raised, including knowledge around land management and
terminology, an awareness of available support and participation
opportunities in the planning system, as well as further training
for institutions in community engagement. A collaborative role for
policy, working with landowners, and the professions (
e.g. planners, surveyors,
lawyers) was advocated. It is recommended that policy development
builds on experience from related policy,
e.g. the Scottish Outdoor
Access Code. Measures of success should be incorporated into policy
implementation and guidance as should recognition of good practice
and standards of professional conduct.

'Soft' policy approaches were suggested by the interviewees,
including best practice templates and guidance. The interviewees
also called for clarity regarding the consequences for land
owners/managers of failing to adhere to engagement guidance (Part 4
of Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016), whether statutory or
voluntary. There should also be recognition of the role of the
forthcoming Land Commission to gather necessary evidence and make
recommendations for mediation, negotiation, and compensation
processes. More generally, the interviewees called for policy 'work
streams' to be brought closer together (
e.g. the Land Use Strategy,
LEADER
and the National Planning Framework 3), and for planning policy to
support community developments (
e.g. through 'bolder' use of
CPO
powers).